Occena vs. COMELEC [G.R. No.
56350, April 2, 1981] What is the power of the Interim Batasang
TO APPROVE PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE
CONSTITUTION, THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
ONLY NEEDS MAJORITY VOTE, SUBJECT TO THE
RATIFICATION BY THE PEOPLE. - The Interim Batasang
Pambansa, sitting as a constituent body, can propose
amendments. In that capacity, only a majority vote is
needed. It would be an indefensible proposition to
assert that the three-fourth votes required when it sits
as a legislative body applies as well when it has been
convened as the agency through which amendments
could be proposed. That is not a requirement as far as
constitutional convention is concerned. It is not a
requirement either when, as in this case, the Interim
Batasang Pambansa exercises its constituent power to
propose amendments.
AMENDMENT INCLUDES REVISION - Petitioners would
urge upon us the proposition that the amendments
proposed are so extensive in character that they go far
beyond the limits of the authority conferred on the
Interim Batasang Pambansa as successor of the Interim
National Assembly. For them, what was done was to
revise and not to amend. It suffices to quote from the
opinion of Justice Makasiar, speaking for the Court, in
Del Rosario v. Commission on Elections to dispose of
this contention. Thus: "3. And whether the
Constitutional Convention will only propose
amendments to the Constitution or entirely overhaul
the present Constitution and propose an entirely new
Constitution based on an ideology foreign to the
democratic system, is of no moment; because the
same will be submitted to the people for ratification.
Once ratified by the sovereign people, there can be no
debate about the validity of the new Constitution. 4.
The fact that the present Constitution may be revised
and replaced with a new one . . . is no argument
against the validity of the law because 'amendment'
includes the 'revision' or total overhaul of the entire
Constitution. At any rate, whether the Constitution is
merely amended in part or revised or totally changed
would become immaterial the moment the same is
ratified by the sovereign people." There is here the
adoption of the principle so well-known in American
decisions as well as legal texts that a constituent body
can propose anything but conclude nothing. We are not
disposed to deviate from such a principle not only
sound in theory but also advantageous in practice.
Facts:
Petitioners Samuel Occena and Ramon A. Gonzales,
both members of the Philippine Bar and former
delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention that
framed the present Constitution, are suing as
taxpayers. The rather unorthodox aspect of these
petitions is the assertion that the 1973 Constitution is
not the fundamental law, the Javellana ruling to the
contrary notwithstanding.
Issue:
Pambansa to propose amendments and how may it be
exercised? More specifically as to the latter, what is the
extent of the changes that may be introduced, the
number of votes necessary for the validity of a
proposal, and the standard required for a proper
submission?
Held:
The applicable provision in the 1976
Amendments is quite explicit. Insofar as pertinent it
reads thus: The Interim Batasang Pambansa shall
have the same powers and its Members shall have the
same functions, responsibilities, rights, privileges, and
disqualifications as the interim National Assembly and
the regular National Assembly and the Members
thereof. One of such powers is precisely that of
proposing amendments. The 1973 Constitution in its
Transitory Provisions vested the Interim National
Assembly with the power to propose amendments
upon special call by the Prime Minister by a vote of the
majority of its members to be ratified in accordance
with the Article on Amendments. When, therefore, the
Interim Batasang Pambansa, upon the call of the
President and Prime Minister Ferdinand E. Marcos, met
as a constituent body its authority to do so is clearly
beyond doubt. It could and did propose the
amendments embodied in the resolutions now being
assailed. It may be observed parenthetically that as far
as petitioner Occena is concerned, the question of the
authority of the Interim Batasang Pambansa to propose
amendments is not new. Considering that the proposed
amendment of Section 7 of Article X of the Constitution
extending the retirement of members of the Supreme
Court and judges of inferior courts from sixty-five (65)
to seventy (70) years is but a restoration of the age of
retirement provided in the 1935 Constitution and has
been intensively and extensively discussed at the
Interim Batasang Pambansa, as well as through the
mass media, it cannot, therefore, be said that our
people are unaware of the advantages and
disadvantages of the proposed amendment.
Issue:
Were the amendments proposed are so
extensive in character that they go far beyond the
limits of the authority conferred on the Interim
Batasang Pambansa as Successor of the Interim
National Assembly? Was there revision rather than
amendment?
Held:
Whether the Constitutional Convention will
only propose amendments to the Constitution or
entirely overhaul the present Constitution and propose
an entirely new Constitution based on an Ideology
foreign to the democratic system, is of no moment;
because the same will be submitted to the people for
ratification. Once ratified by the sovereign people,
there can be no debate about the validity of the new
Constitution. The fact that the present Constitution
may be revised and replaced with a new one is no
argument against the validity of the law because
amendment includes the revision or total overhaul of Gozales instituted a prohibiting proceedings against
the entire Constitution. At any rate, whether the
Constitution is merely amended in part or revised or
totally changed would become immaterial the moment
the same is ratified by the sovereign people.
Issue: What is the vote necessary to propose
amendments as well as the standard for proper
submission?
Held: The Interim Batasang Pambansa,
sitting as a constituent body, can propose
amendments. In that capacity, only a majority vote is
needed. It would be an indefensible proposition to
assert that the three-fourth votes required when it sits
as a legislative body applies as well when it has been
convened as the agency through which amendments
could be proposed. That is not a requirement as far as
a constitutional convention is concerned. It is not a
requirement either when, as in this case, the Interim
Batasang Pambansa exercises its constituent power to
propose amendments. Moreover, even on the
assumption that the requirement of three- fourth votes
applies, such extraordinary majority was obtained. It is
not disputed that Resolution No. 1 proposing an
amendment allowing a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines naturalized in a foreign country to own a
limited area of land for residential purposes was
approved by the vote of 122 to 5; Resolution No. 2
dealing with the Presidency, the Prime Minister and the
Cabinet, and the National Assembly by a vote of 147 to
5 with 1 abstention; and Resolution No. 3 on the
amendment to the Article on the Commission on
Elections by a vote of 148 to 2 with 1 abstention.
Where then is the alleged infirmity? As to the requisite
standard for a proper submission, the question may be
viewed not only from the standpoint of the period that
must elapse before the holding of the plebiscite but
also from the standpoint of such amendments having
been called to the attention of the people so that it
could not plausibly be maintained that they were
properly informed as to the proposed changes. As to
the period, the Constitution indicates the way the
matter should be resolved. There is no ambiguity to the
applicable provision: Any amendment to, or revision
of, this Constitution shall be valid when ratified by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be
held not later than three months after the approval of
such amendment or revision. The three resolutions
were approved by the Interim Batasang Pambansa
sitting as a constituent assembly on February 5 and 27,
1981. In the Batasang Pambansa Blg. 22, the date of
the plebiscite is set for April 7, 1981. It is thus within
the 90-day period provided by the Constitution.
SAMUEL OCCENA VS. COMELEC
G.R. NO. L-34150
APRIL 2, 1981
FACTS: Petitioner Samuel Occena and Ramon A.
the validity of three batasang pambansa resolutions
(Resolution No. 1 proposing an amendment allowing a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines naturalized in a
foreign country to own a limited area of land for
residential purposes was approved by the vote of 122
to 5; Resolution No. 2 dealing with the Presidency, the
Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and the National
Assembly by a vote of 147 to 5 with 1 abstention; and
Resolution No. 3 on the amendment to the Article on
the Commission on Elections by a vote of 148 to 2 with
1 abstention.) The petitioners contends that such
resolution is against the constitutions in proposing
amendments:
ISSUE: Whether the resolutions are unconstitutional?
HELD: In dismissing the petition for lack of merit, the
court ruled the following:
1. The power of the Interim Batasang Pambansa to
propose its amendments and how it may be exercised
was validly obtained. The 1973 Constitution in its
Transitory Provisions vested the Interim National
Assembly with the power to propose amendments
upon special call by the Prime Minister by a vote of the
majority of its members to be ratified in accordance
with the Article on Amendments similar with the
interim and regular national assembly. 15 When,
therefore, the Interim Batasang Pambansa, upon the
call of the President and Prime Minister Ferdinand E.
Marcos, met as a constituent body it acted by virtue of
such impotence.
2. Petitioners assailed that the resolutions where so
extensive in character as to amount to a revision rather
than amendments. To dispose this contention, the court
held that whether the Constitutional Convention will
only propose amendments to the Constitution or
entirely overhaul the present Constitution and propose
an entirely new Constitution based on an ideology
foreign to the democratic system, is of no moment,
because the same will be submitted to the people for
ratification. Once ratified by the sovereign people,
there can be no debate about the validity of the new
Constitution. The fact that the present Constitution
may be revised and replaced with a new one ... is no
argument against the validity of the law because
'amendment' includes the 'revision' or total overhaul of
the entire Constitution. At any rate, whether the
Constitution is merely amended in part or revised or
totally changed would become immaterial the moment
the same is ratified by the sovereign people."
3. That leaves only the questions of the vote necessary
to propose amendments as well as the standard for
proper submission. The language of the Constitution
supplies the answer to the above questions. The
Interim Batasang Pambansa, sitting as a constituent
body, can propose amendments. In that capacity, only
a majority vote is needed. It would be an indefensible
proposition to assert that the three-fourth votes
required when it sits as a legislative body applies as
well when it has been convened as the agency through
which amendments could be proposed. That is not a
requirement as far as a constitutional convention is
concerned. Further, the period required by the
constitution was complied as follows: "Any amendment
to, or revision of, this Constitution shall be valid when
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite
which shall be held not later than three months after
the approval of such amendment or revision." 21 The
three resolutions were approved by the Interim
Batasang Pambansa sitting as a constituent assembly
on February 5 and 27, 1981. In the Batasang Pambansa
Blg. 22, the date of the plebiscite is set for April 7,
1981. It is thus within the 90-day period provided by
the Constitution